Quote :

"Again, you're wrong, that's not what they do. They are attached to a vehicle which drives around conducting the normal duties of a police officer. They don't single anyone out at all, they randomly collect data as it drives by them or around them in a public street. They don't follow and map and single out vehicles. In fact, the sole purpose of these is to make it "another set of eyes" for the police officer who is driving around in the vehicle in which they are equipped. Most of these camera programs run through the computer which is connected to NCIC and the main purpose is to literally capture plates and check them to be stolen or for wanted persons. In doing so it creates a data file as that is what is compared to the NCIC database."

That's exactly what they do, they just do it "more efficiently", quicker and a higher volume than a human can. It is a device designed to single out "people" and collect information about them. It's not random collection. It's targeted collection of any plate within range. Just because it collects multiple plates in short order doesn't make it random. It's a catch-all device on purpose and with a purpose.

And cops don't need another set of eyes. They can use their own and that's all they really need.

[Edited on August 22, 2014 at 1:21 PM. Reason : .]

8/22/2014 1:21:07 PM

Quote :

"an even more efficient method would be to put license plate scanners at every intersection, the record of where every vehicle is and has been would be very useful for law enforcement"

8/22/2014 1:22:02 PM

WDPRICE, you make no sense. You're saing its "OK" for an officer to turn on his dashcam and capture you by driving by you randomly.

But it's not ok for a different camera on the same car that indiscriminately recognizes registration plates to capture less "information?"


So instead of a photograph camera on the outside of a police car, they should just put "Dash cam" style full recording video cameras. That's more OK.

8/22/2014 1:30:02 PM

These are two very different devices, with different uses, technologies, impacts, and purposes.

Though I do believe that there should be a hurdle for the government to jump over in order to use any recording device (e.g. video camera) to willingly, knowingly, and intentionally collect information about an individual with a specific purpose. This is very different than someone just driving/walking by and happening to enter the frame. It's all about targeting and collection of information that makes the difference. Plate scanners target and collect. Dashcams are random and don't really collect information in nearly the same sense. And this information is typically deleted fairly soon as it's mostly not needed. Unless things have changed. I guess a better way to describe it, is collection of information and action based upon that collection of information. Plate scanners take action. Dashcams don't and the police (to my knowledge) don't go back to the station and watch/notate/etc. about this video. It just gets recycled unless a particular time frame is needed.

[Edited on August 22, 2014 at 1:45 PM. Reason : .]

8/22/2014 1:38:50 PM

So a police officer following a vehicle with it's dashcam on, recording a "driving history" of an impaired driver. Then recording the traffic stop, field sobriety tests etc is not specific and recording an individual for a reason with criminal evidence in mind?

^^

With that being said, what hurdle? A search warrant to record a DWI stop?

[Edited on August 22, 2014 at 1:46 PM. Reason : ?]

8/22/2014 1:45:54 PM

are you just trying to argue or do you really not understand the difference?

8/22/2014 1:49:31 PM

In some cases, sure a warrant. At a minimum in others, PC (RS is mostly court-created horseshit).

And so yes, in order to follow a vehicle and purposely record them, an officer must have clear PC and the video should later be viewed by a legal team to corroborate the PC.

Your example is perfect. A cop just driving around has their dashcam on. It's collection of data is at best random, non-targeted, and not acted upon. Then the officer observes a vehicle swerving, having trouble maintaining speed, etc. Based on his/her professional judgement, the officer believes he has met the conditions of PC in regards to a possible impaired driver and decides to follow said car, willingly, knowing, and intentionally, following them, recording them, and collecting data on them, with a purpose, and ultimately acting on that information. All of this is reasonable and good.

But I also think every police car should be fitted with a dashcam; every police officer with a personnel cam. I think officers should be required to radio in their thoughts, actions, and intentions and have said video to corroborate their story later. I think legal experts should be on the other side of that radio, not just cops/radio operators.

[Edited on August 22, 2014 at 1:58 PM. Reason : .]

8/22/2014 1:52:39 PM

Quote :

"These are two very different devices, with different uses, technologies, impacts, and purposes. Though I do believe that there should be a hurdle for the government to jump over in order to use any recording device (e.g. video camera) to willingly, knowingly, and intentionally collect information about an individual with a specific purpose."

This. Again, DWI Stop, Dash cam, collecting evidence of your poor driving and interactions and sobriety testing. What hurdle must the government jump through to collect this?

8/22/2014 1:54:07 PM

Quote :

"In some cases, sure a warrant. At a minimum in others, PC (RS is mostly court-created horseshit). And so yes, in order to follow a vehicle and purposely record them, an officer must have clear PC and the video should later be viewed by a legal team to corroborate the PC."

Oh good, please tell me how you feel about the plain view doctrine and warrantless searches regarding same.


Also, do you believe dash cams should be running at all times, officers wearing body cameras during their encounters with citizens?
All of theses and capture crimes and evidence against people without any probable cause ahead of time.

8/22/2014 1:57:48 PM

Yes, and I've said so before. Everything a cop does should be recorded. It's random, non-targeted, non-acted upon data collection that's trashed; unless a specific need for it arises. Now, if you want to start keeping that video, cataloging, analyzing, etc. then we'll need some stricter controls.

8/22/2014 1:59:39 PM

Ultraspank, why should license plate readers be limited to patrol cars? Why not also place them at intersections?

8/22/2014 2:02:00 PM

Quote :

"Yes, and I've said so before. Everything a cop does should be recorded. It's random, non-targeted, non-acted upon data collection that's trashed; unless a specific need for it arises. Now, if you want to start keeping that video, cataloging, analyzing, etc. then we'll need some stricter controls."

Wheres the line between being a human being and a government robot?

While being paid on duty as a government entity a cop should be recorded 24/7. No "privacy" to eat, drink, use the restroom, have private conversations with friends on the phones, coworkers etc?

Where do you draw the line? Cops are human too.

There's such a grey area that you're floating in about who has rights and what they are. Should all cops have detailed profiles of them and their personal lives viewable to the public 24/7? medical records, tax records, home addresses and phone numbers?

8/22/2014 2:03:47 PM

Quote :

"Wheres the line between being a human being and a government robot? While being paid on duty as a government entity a cop should be recorded 24/7. No "privacy" to eat, drink, use the restroom, have private conversations with friends on the phones, coworkers etc?"

The line between a human and robot? Seriously?

Yes, while on duty, everything a copy does in the line of duty should be recorded. It's not social time. It's not time to talk to friends on the phone while you're supposed to be working. Obviously, if one is on break, then they are not currently in the line of duty (e.g. lunch, shitting, etc.) and don't have to be recorded.

Quote :

"There's such a grey area that you're floating in about who has rights and what they are. "

No, not really. If you're a cop and on duty, you're part of the government. You fall under a different set of rules at the time. Private citizens always have privacy rights. Paid government wannabe soldiers on the hunt aren't private citizens while they're on the clock, they are the government. And the government doesn't get the same luxuries as private citizens. Off the clock, you're a private citizen.

Quote :

"Should all cops have detailed profiles of them and their personal lives viewable to the public 24/7? medical records, tax records, home addresses and phone numbers?"

Why would this be needed? No one is asking for any of this. Only relevant information pertaining to their public position and record should be available to the public. WTF is this reactionary bullshit you're posting?

I don't know why it's hard for you to understand that as a police officer, everything you do behind the badge should be held to a higher standard, should be public record, should be scrutinized. Anything you do without the badge is what you do as a private citizen. Shit, it's really no different than any other public position. Except for that if your private dirty laundry gets out, soccer moms will care what you do in your private life. And for that, I apologize.

Why are you so scared about having your public job known by the public? Trying to hide something? Trying to shield the brotherhood? Gotta follow the code, man! Parley. Parley.

[Edited on August 22, 2014 at 2:15 PM. Reason : .]

8/22/2014 2:05:55 PM

Ultraspank, why should license plate readers be limited to patrol cars? Why not also place them at intersections?

8/22/2014 2:06:40 PM

Quote :

"The line between a human and robot? Seriously? Yes, while on duty, everything a copy does in the line of duty should be recorded. It's not social time. It's not time to talk to friends on the phone while you're supposed to be working. Obviously, if one is on break, then they are not currently in the line of duty (e.g. lunch, shitting, etc.) and don't have to be recorded."

You must not know much about being a cop. The majority of cops in this country work a 12 hour shift that rotates between day shifts and night shifts. Sometimes depending on the day and time, there may not be a single minute for break from "duty" work. That's why a lot of cops bring food with them to eat in the car. On the other side of that, some days there just may not be a damn thing to do except sit in the open and gain "voluntary compliance" just by their presence in an area or road.

Saying that a cop shouldn't ever have time to talk to someone, or make a phone call, eat, drink, or do anything of the sort unless on a "break" is ridiculous.

Black and white On/Off statements like that are for one not in any way reasonable.

But you would lose discretion. You would lose duty. You would lose all human aspects of an individual in how they complete their job.


You may as well say cops during their "tour of duty" shall cite and arrest for every violation of the general statutes, ordinances, or federal offenses they observe or have PC in which a violation has been committed.

During "break time" officers should have a little "out of service" sign, like a taxi, they can light up on their cars so that you can't run to them for help, or ask them questions, or even flip them off just because you don't like cops.

If you run out of "break times" then damn, you're going to have to be dehydrated, and shit yourself, because on duty you're SOL.

8/22/2014 2:16:48 PM

hey look, a cop who is afraid of being accountable and having more oversight!

if you are having a conversation in a public vehicle in public, why do you care if anyone records it?

[Edited on August 22, 2014 at 2:19 PM. Reason : .]

8/22/2014 2:18:32 PM

Quote :

"Ultraspank, why should license plate readers be limited to patrol cars? Why not also place them at intersections?"

Aren't they already there?

Aren't red light cameras a camera that takes multiple photos of a vehicle, registration plate and driver, records the time, location, and speed, and even automates a fine for you? What happens to this information and date? ( I ask because I don't even know).

Aren't there also video surveillance cameras in most public parks and parking decks? Again, same logic.


I defend the one's attached to a police car merely because it's being monitored by the cop inside and random depending on where they are going and what they are doing. So if that cop gets a crappy assignment guarding a prisoner at the hospital all day then those cameras probably aren't going to do much in a car turned off in a parking lot somewhere. But i the same cop is driving around on the interstate doing interdiction or speed enforcement, the they may be more useful.

8/22/2014 2:22:09 PM

As long as you are acting as a government agent, you are a public employee and your actions are of public record. Not revolutionary. And if you're stopping your public work to talk on the phone to someone about non-work related items, then you by definition, are on a break. It's not that hard to figure out. And it is black and white. You are either acting as a government agent or you aren't. Taking a shit? Not. Patrolling? Are. Talking to my baby momma? Not. Observing from your car? Are.

If you think you're so busy you can't take a 5 minute break for a shit, then that's on you and you're acting as a public agent the entire time. If you take that 5 minute shit, then you're on break.

Quote :

"Saying that a cop shouldn't ever have time to talk to someone, or make a phone call, eat, drink, or do anything of the sort unless on a "break" is ridiculous. "

Uh, doing any of these things is by definition a break.

[Edited on August 22, 2014 at 2:26 PM. Reason : .]

8/22/2014 2:22:38 PM

so why not add those cameras to the same database to be more efficient and then add them at every intersection? wouldn't that make law enforcement a lot more efficient?

[Edited on August 22, 2014 at 2:24 PM. Reason : in addition to the cars, not replacing it]

8/22/2014 2:23:24 PM

Quote :

" During "break time" officers should have a little "out of service" sign, like a taxi, they can light up on their cars so that you can't run to them for help, or ask them questions, or even flip them off just because you don't like cops. "

Hahaha that would be the best.

"HELP, OFFICER, THIS GUY IS STABBING ME TO DEATH"

"Sorry, sir." *taps off duty sign* <\]

8/22/2014 2:23:32 PM

haha

8/22/2014 2:24:25 PM

Quote :

"Saying that a cop shouldn't ever have time to talk to someone, or make a phone call, eat, drink, or do anything of the sort unless on a "break" is ridiculous."

but you said you shouldn't expect privacy in public, if you are in a public area why do you care if that phone call is recorded? I can easily be near you and record the conversation with a boom or laser mic, anyone could, so why do you expect to have any privacy while in public. no one is saying you should be recorded while in your home.

8/22/2014 2:25:53 PM

Quote :

"hey look, a cop who is afraid of being accountable and having more oversight! if you are having a conversation in a public vehicle in public, why do you care if anyone records it?"

Afraid? Not in the slightest. I actually encourage dash cams and body cam usage.

People constantly record cops in public areas.

What if you're not in a public area? what if you're sitting in your car or in the locker room, or somewhere not public. There's an expectation of privacy of personal information that is not surrendered just because you're "on duty."

Does the public get the ability to stop and seize a cop and conduct searches of cops and detain them against their constitutional rights while they are on duty?

8/22/2014 2:27:25 PM

i don't think anyone is saying you should be recorded in the locker room, and your car isn't private. right now i can easily record your conversation in the car while your car is in a public place, and you already said that you shoulnd't have a problem with that because no one should have an expectation of privacy while in public.

[Edited on August 22, 2014 at 2:29 PM. Reason : ^no, it would become a public record and managed similarly]

8/22/2014 2:28:38 PM

Quote :

"but you said you shouldn't expect privacy in public, if you are in a public area why do you care if that phone call is recorded? I can easily be near you and record the conversation with a boom or laser mic, anyone could, so why do you expect to have any privacy while in public. no one is saying you should be recorded while in your home."

Now you're talking about things that go beyond the scope of being legal. Devices that enhance audio and such can be a intrusion on your privacy.

Can cops use laser and boom mics to hear your conversation inside your vehicle without a warrant or such? No.

Can cops come and just sit in your vehicle with you just because it's on a public road? No..


You're taking things out of context and not being reasonable in your comparisons.
You can't compare legal means and non-legal means as the same thing.

8/22/2014 2:30:55 PM

Ultraspank on page 1 when the topic is other people being recorded:

Quote :

"Legally obtained information (data) gathered in public IS NOT PRIVATE."

Ultraspank on page 2 when the topic is him being recorded

Quote :

"There's an expectation of privacy of personal information that is not surrendered just because you're "on duty.""

so as long as there is a law passed, Ultraspank is okay with all of his conversations being recorded while on duty because IT IS NOT PRIVATE

8/22/2014 2:31:13 PM

Ultraspank, do you agree that we should fill the city with cameras with face detection and license plate readers to make law enforcement easier?

8/22/2014 2:35:21 PM

Quote :

"i don't think anyone is saying you should be recorded in the locker room, and your car isn't private. right now i can easily record your conversation in the car while your car is in a public place, and you already said that you shoulnd't have a problem with that because no one should have an expectation of privacy while in public. [Edited on August 22, 2014 at 2:29 PM. Reason : ^no, it would become a public record and managed similarly]"

Can a cop do this to you? No it's a violation of your constitutional rights without a warrant. Again I would argue that the inside of a car, police or not is private to an extent.

You're again not able to just come and seize and police car and get inside of it and search and do whatever you want, just because it's a police car.


Let's try about it from this side. I'm on duty, talking about a case, going over evidence, etc etc etc. Talking about confidential informants and all the sort. All this information is public record and can be released to the public? Negative.

8/22/2014 2:35:56 PM

Any interaction with others should certainly be recorded

But I'm still talking about license plate scanners, are you okay with cameras all over the city with face detection and license plate scanners that can track you all the time?

8/22/2014 2:38:28 PM

Quote :

"Ultraspank on page 1 when the topic is other people being recorded: Quote : "Legally obtained information (data) gathered in public IS NOT PRIVATE." Ultraspank on page 2 when the topic is him being recorded Quote : "There's an expectation of privacy of personal information that is not surrendered just because you're "on duty."" so as long as there is a law passed, Ultraspank is okay with all of his conversations being recorded while on duty because IT IS NOT PRIVATE"

So what didn't you understand about legally obtained? You're talking about two completely separate topics out of context in which doesn't even make sense.


You do realize that even information, evidence, data etc which is legally obtained is not all public record? Try to go see evidence, reports, dash cam videos etc, Even the freedom of information act doesn't allow all of this as public record at all times.

8/22/2014 2:39:50 PM

if a law was passed so that not one party needed to know about recordings in NC, or that all officers were recorded at all times, then you would be okay with it per page 1

yes, I'm aware, that's why I said "managed similarly" and not release it all to the public

[Edited on August 22, 2014 at 2:42 PM. Reason : are you okay with cameras tracking you 24/7?]

8/22/2014 2:40:25 PM

Quote :

"Any interaction with others should certainly be recorded But I'm still talking about license plate scanners, are you okay with cameras all over the city with face detection and license plate scanners that can track you all the time?"

It's funny you bring that up, I was typing about that as we speak.

For one, there area obviously already cameras all over the city and streets, so that point is moot.


My view of these is that they should be able to take whats legally available to them (Ie registration plates) and compare them to a database to check for them being stolen/wanted etc.
Same goes for cameras and face recognition. I think in public they should be able to scan everyone's faces and compare them to wanted persons and make an alert or whatever.


NOW THAT BEING SAID. I think the data should be able to be stored for later access. BUT, this access should be allowed with a judicial order (such as a search warrant) for evidence of a specific crime. Like, if you commit a crime somewhere, with a warrant, police can go and access the database to show your vehicle or your face being at a location at a certain time.

THAT ALSO BEING SAID. These cameras should only be in legal public places.

8/22/2014 2:45:32 PM

Quote :

"if a law was passed so that not one party needed to know about recordings in NC, or that all officers were recorded at all times, then you would be okay with it per page 1 yes, I'm aware, that's why I said "managed similarly" and not release it all to the public "

I don't see that ever being able to pass as it's not constitutional, but for argument's sake if that were to pass then yes, it would be legal at that point.

8/22/2014 2:47:20 PM

^so basically you agree with what others said early on page 1, that the database is the issue and it needs clear rules on data retention and access

[Edited on August 22, 2014 at 2:49 PM. Reason : so why are you arguing? slow day getting paid by our tax dollars?]

8/22/2014 2:49:09 PM

Quote :

"so basically you agree with what others said early on page 1, that the database is the issue and it needs clear rules on data retention and access"

Absolutely. Currently there are no regulations governing it because it's so new and the laws are always so slow to catch up. But my opinion is that^

8/22/2014 2:50:32 PM

Quote :

"It's random, non-targeted, non-acted upon data collection that's trashed"

This is not exactly correct. It depends on how in the cloud the police department is. A lot of the time this data can be backed up without a "tape", straight to a server. This video has the potential to be scanned in the future at that point. The more advanced we get, the more anything you do can come back to bite you.

8/22/2014 3:28:14 PM

For the 100th time, you DO NOT need probable cause to stop someone.

8/22/2014 4:12:41 PM

I forget which one of them was saying it, but they think the police should have probable cause before even using a video camera or other recording device.



It's silly, I have no idea where that even comes from.

8/22/2014 4:17:21 PM

^^which is a failure of the law and supreme court. there should be at a minimum, PC for a traffic stop.

8/22/2014 5:15:51 PM

Quote :

"For the 100th time, you DO NOT need probable cause to stop someone."

This is true if you are referring to their ability to 'make up' a reason to stop you. Otherwise its a violation of your rights.

http://www.businessinsider.com/what-rights-do-you-have-when-pulled-over-2013-11

8/22/2014 5:18:37 PM

Lol. That article is all sorts of wrong. There is no more search incident to arrest after arresting you out of a car unless evidence of the crime could be present. See Arizona v. Grant. And yes, if you are asked to step out of the car, you have too. See Pennsylvania v. Mimms. And it's reasonable suspicion; always has, always will*. See Terry v. Ohio. It's not uncommon to see/hear from a lawyer who doesn't know his shit.

*There could always been some bad case law in the future.

8/22/2014 5:24:49 PM

RS = jacked up court created bullshit that needs to go away.

He's black, reasonable suspicion!

8/22/2014 5:31:29 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4nQ_mFJV4I

RS vs PC at 20 min mark. Good video.

8/22/2014 6:06:00 PM

Quote :

"and an old rusty colt 6-shooter"

How about an M&P R8? I would totally carry a wheel gun.

8/22/2014 6:56:03 PM